On Wed, 02 May 2012 12:59:34 -0400, David Nadlinger <s...@klickverbot.at>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 16:52:33 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
shared? Almost always in any non-trivial application. shared is only
useful if you're dealing with templatized functions that can actually
handle it, which is not the case as often as one would like.
Additionally, shared is currently little more than a marker for non-TLS
data.
No, it's very important that it is a type constructor. For example, it
makes weak-pure functions possible.
I think there is a large piece of shared missing/undefined, and that is,
how do I mark something shared as "temporarily local". I think Bartosz
proposed something like "lent".
We essentially need the equivalent of const for shared. Const unifies
immutable and mutable, we need something to unify shared and thread-local.
The problem is, something like this needs to be combined with
thread-locks. I wonder if some kind of ARC would be useful for
automatically unlocking the data.
-Steve
